Which taxes do Oregonians expect next

By Oregon Taxpayers Association PAC

A poll of over 300 Oregon voters were asked which tax they fear will be raised next by the state or local governments in Oregon. The results overwhelmingly indicate they most expect a tax on cell phone use. When given the option of whether they expect to see an individual tax or if there is the likelihood of a bundle of tax increases, one in three saw a bundle of taxes in their future.


However, the poll was taken before the November election results. With the Democrats stripped of their super majorities and the House now sharing majority, the voters may have been sending a fiscal message of restraint to the Oregon House and Senate. With that change in the air, would that make a difference in the responses?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:21 | Posted in Measure 37 | 46 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    >With that change in the air, would that make a difference in the responses?

    I sure don’t think so. I mean lets face it, on a national level Democrats took it on the chin a lot harder than they did in Oregon, and they still think its a communication problem, not a problem with the basic message of big spending and high taxes. SO I doubt on a national level people feel like Democrats got the message. Do I think state wide people feel Democrats received any message of fiscal restraint? Probably not. I mean the major place they lost was in some state house seats, but they held onto congressional seats as well as the governorship. Since that’s less of a trouncing than Democrats got nationally, and nationally they still have no clue as to the political mood, I would have a hard time seeing how on a statewide basis Democrats are going to change their ways.

    Lets face it, Democrats won, or at the very least held on, at the state level here and I think that’s how most people perceive it. Given that tax raising is a constant and ongoing process in Oregon I have no idea why people would think that would change given the election results.

  • Selah

    For certain, DEATH and more freakin’ TAXES.
    Doh! Komm, süßer Tod!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komm,_s%C3%BC%C3%9Fer_Tod

    • Wayne Brady

      The trouble with the Tax Foundation analysis is it doesn’t count fees. About half of the money the government extracts from us is from fees. The fees are just another revenue source. They do not necessarily have any relation to the cost of the service rendered.

      The best way to see how much we are paying is to look at the spending. The spending has been growing at a terrific rate. It far exceeds population growth and inflation. That is just more government programs and higher wages and benefits.

      • valley p

        “About half of the money the government extracts from us is from fees. ”

        Besides the obvious point that nowhere near 1/2 of what we pay to government is in the form of fees, what is wrong with fees? The whole point is that only those who use a service pay for it, while others do not have to chip in. I thought that was a conservative principle. Was I wrong?

        • Wayne Brady

          If the fees actually reflected the cost of the service that would be fine. They do not.

          The point is look at what they spend. That is what government is costing us. The politicians like to hide what they take out of our pockets.

        • Steve Plunk

          Unfortunately that’s wrong. The city fees on my business property are larger than my city property taxes. I pay a storm drain fee yet have no storm drains. I pay a street fee but do not traverse city streets but rather county roads. The claimed connection between fees and services is false. They charge because they can. At least that’s what the city finance office said.

          Quit trying to play conservative. It isn’t cute and you do it wrong.

          • eagle eye

            And when they require you to have storm drains you’ll be happy with that?

          • Steve Plunk

            No but that’s not the point. Governments claim a direct connection between fees and services which isn’t always true. valley p made that claim and I merely pointed out it was false.

          • eagle eye

            Do you have any runoff water e.g. to wash all those trucks? Sounds like you’re getting off easy not having to install storm sewers. You’re lucky if all they do is make you pay the tax.

          • Founding Fathers

            You travel to and from your business in the city without traversing any city streets? Sounds like quite a feat.

          • Anonymous

            What do you expect? He owns a trucking company, if I’m not mistaken. You don’t expect him to pay street fees, do you?

          • Steve Plunk

            Ignorance of how streets are paid for doesn’t excuse your snark.

            Again, this is about valley p’s claim that fees are directly tied to services. It’s false. I pay for streets with fuel taxes, weight mile fees, and registration fees. Those are all split between federal, state, and local governments to pay for street construction and maintenance. Of course I pay for street and highway usage.

          • Steve Plunk

            My street is a private street that connects to a county road then state highway. We were annexed into the city after several businesses put in a water line. Forcibly annexed I should add.

            I know some of find it surprising these things happen but they do and they happen often.

          • valley p

            Stormwater runs off your property to somewhere, and has to be managed, and you pay a fee for what used to be “free” because of constraints we passed on property taxation.

            As for streets. If you business is in a city, then you or your customers use city streets now and then.

            As for playing conservative, no thanks. I appreciate the services we pay for and get, and don;t expect perfection. I’m not a whiner like you guys.

        • Marvinlee

          I’m OK with the general idea of fees that match services and costs. It does lend itself to abuse and that needs watching. The chief danger is that we will evolve a system where a combination of fees, taxes, and governmental pass through create much higher spending on a service or good than is justified by the need for the product. Such excess spending could easily escape public notice.

          • Steve Plunk

            You hit the nail on the head. They love to hide fees and taxes so people aren’t aware of how high they are.

      • Anonymous

        “inflation plus population growth” is not the right formula. “growth of the economy” would be more like it. Of course personnel costs go up faster than inflation — because total compensation is increasing faster than inflation — that is true in the “private sector” as well as the “public sector” — especially for the high earners — just look at how the top 1% is making out — like bandits!

        • Wayne Brady

          In private industry, it is OK for employee compensation to grow faster than inflation. They can do this because they are continually getting more efficient. For that reason they can absorb the increases and still not get priced out of the market. Government is a monopoly and does not need to worry about competition and does not become more efficient.

          Even if you use economic output as a benchmark, government is growing too fast. It is a growing percentage of the economy. We cannot afford all of that overhead.

          • eagle eye

            You think government compensation shouldn’t go up faster than inflation? That’s ridiculous! It’s debatable whether public or private productivity increases more. But in any case, if private accountants go up a certain amount, you can be pretty sure government accountants are going to go up by approximately the same amount. Ditto with dentists, physicians. Pretty much everything. It’s silly to think otherwise.

            Is government growing faster than the economy? The federal government, lately, yes. The state government (the part paid for out of local funds, I’m not talking about federal unemployment benefits, etc.)? I don’t know. Over time, though, they’ve tracked remarkably closely.

  • Sol668

    Always the victims, poor poor conservatives…but lets look at the facts

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/476.html

    total tax burden has been falling for 30 years

    • Steve Plunk

      No, conservatives pay the taxes to those who claim to be victims. Total tax burden may indeed be falling as fewer pay taxes but the rest take up the slack and they are paying more. Regardless the fact remains taxes are high enough to impede economic growth and the government squanders what it collects. Our parasitic government has grown too big and threatens the life of the host.

      • valley p

        “No, conservatives pay the taxes to those who claim to be victims.”

        Fantasy land. “Liberals” and “moderates” don’t pay taxes? And “conservatives,” particularly those over 65, have not claimed victimhood when Obama cut their cushy Medicare Advantage subsidy?

        Get real Steve. More rich people voted for Obama than McCain, and they pay taxes.

      • eagle eye

        Yes, all those parasitic government operatives — the hedge fund traders, derivatives daredevils, banker bandits, mortgage marauders who nearly wrecked our economy and had to be bailed out to the tune of a trillion dollars — which of course was paid by the public — they worked for government agencies like Bank of America, Lehmann Bros., Goldman, AIG, etc. etc. — you have picked the right people to blame!

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Hate to tell you this but government rip offs cost people way more than Wall Street bailouts ever did.

          But go ahead – to use your phrase – run it up the flagpole

          Its ok for government to rip you off because bankers ripped you off.

          Good luck with that one,

          • eagle eye

            Was responding to the usual vicious rants about parasitic government, workers, etc. etc. Yeah, the great private free market nearly ruined our economy, and we (the government) had to bail them out to the tune of a trillion dollars or is it 2 trillion to keep the whole country from going on unemployment. I would think the hate-government types would be feeling pretty humble about that.

        • Steve Plunk

          Mortgages tanked because of lax standards pushed by Dems like Barney Frank. I believe AIG has paid back it’s loan. The others were all businesses people could choose to do business with or not. The government ponzi scheme and debt is being perpetuated on the citizens and we can’t choose to not do business with them.

          If there is one entity that consistently lies and fails in it’s fiduciary responsibility it’s the federal government followed closely by all other government. It’s their nature.

          • eagle eye

            It was a lot more than Barney Frank. It was the greedy, corrupt financiers with their derivatives, their CDO’s full of worthless junk, the credit default swaps, the incompentent rating agencies — a colossal example of market failure.

            You are extremely naive if you think they “paid it back.” Especially for someone who supposedly got a degree in accounting, if I am not mistaken.

            They way they paid it back was by being given a trillion dollars basically in free money, on which they pay no interest, and then loaning it back to the government — they call it “recapitalizing” the banks. Who pays? Anyone living off of interest on savings, that’s who. Talked to any retirees lately? Have you ever wondered why PERS rates went down the last biennium, and then shot up for the next biennium? It’s partly because of the bailout. We are all paying for it.

      • SOL668

        What on earth are you talking about?

        Conservatives pay the taxes, look at a map the poorest regions of oregon voted for dudely

        the highest unemployment regions of oregon voted for dudely

        while lake oswego favored kitzhaber

        All you conservatives have are these ridiculous stereotypes, and falsehoods

    • “”

      What unmitigated B.S. monsewer Sol668! What a SEIU maroon goon! Ugh!

  • Anonymous

    A wide array of fees will be doubled and callled modest increases.

  • eagle eye

    Of course, if Oregon was serious about helping its economy, it would be replacing at least half the income tax with a sales tax. But poor benighted Oregon will not even consider that.

  • Founding Fathers

    You travel to and from your business in the city without traversing any city streets? Sounds like quite a feat.

  • AA

    The beer tax is the best one as only poor people drink beer, so they would finally be paying their fair share.

  • Mary’s Opinion

    I think the November election will have no effect in staving off increased or new taxes. However, there won’t be a VAT tax at the state level any time soon. A restaurant meal tax probably won’t happen soon either. Besides, that tax could open the door to a sales tax. We already have taxes on bear and alcohol. So that’s an easy tax to increase. The ground work for a cell phone tax has already been laid in the media and the public has been softened up to that. I think it is most likely to be enacted.

    • Mary’s Opinion

      Little spelling error on beer. It is most unlikely that bear’s will be taxed unless through a hunting license

      • xoxoxo Mary Don’t you Weep

        Proud Mary, ‘bearing’ a lovely Freudian slip attending BEER taxation: You may have included ‘BIER’ TAXATION (a stand on which a corpse or coffin is placed; also : a coffin together with its stand) as well, considering Oregon’s taxing paradigms bent on sending us on a pathos clear into perditionatory.

        http://s0.ilike.com/play#Stonewall+Jackson:Mary+Don't+You+Weep

  • DUH

    I think the article asked a good question and got some good guesses from the respodants.

    How about if everyone now lists the places they think the government will curb spending at?

    • valley p

      Well for one, every Republican legislator who voted against or ran against Obamacare is going to forgo their government provided health insurance: projected savings $2.5 million.

    • Wayne Brady

      At the state level, I would start with the Department of Human Services. Their budget went up 60% in just 4 years. The Employment Department budget went up 294%. The Department of Energy went up 152%. The overall budget went up 49%. There are lots of places to cut.

      At the federal level, I would start by repealing ObamaCare. Then I would cut off any “stimulus” spending that is not already committed. I would change Medicaid to a block grant. I would sell off the assets of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and shut them down. I would get the government out of the insurance business including FDIC, SIPC, crop insurance, and flood insurance. There are more that I cannot think of right now.

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33()

  • Pingback: Business DIRECTV()

  • Pingback: fue()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: water ionizer plans()

  • Pingback: plumbers clarksville tenn zip code()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)